---------------------------------
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
I made a rather lengthy reply to the Pat Buchanan supporters in a thread last night about Pat Buchanan's acceptance speech but it is way at the bottom of some 200 replies. So please allow me to start a new thread with a cleaned-up version of it as I would like everybody who is a Pat Buchanan supporter to read it so they can know where some of us "Bushies" are coming from.
I am certain that most of the Buchanan supporters on Free Republic are genuine conservatives who care for their country. So I am a little ashamed to see my fellow "Bushies" attack them and question their conservative principles, etc. That said, there is plenty of mud being slung by people on both sides of this issue.
I am supporting the Bush/Cheney ticket because I am fed up with the Clinton Crime Family. I don't just want to see them beaten this November, I want to see them annihilated. I want to see Hillary Clinton in tears and unable to even make her concession speech in New York. I want to see the condenscending smirks wiped off the faces of the TV anchors for just one night. I want to see Bill Clinton sent back to Arkansas (not New York) in humilation. I want to see the GOP increase their majorities in both the House and Senate to the point where it is virtually override proof. Above all, I want to see a conservative agenda, not a liberal-socialist agenda advanced in Washington.
Think of what Ronald Reagan could have done with a GOP majority in both houses of Congress. The Republican party has a HISTORICAL opportunity to control both houses of Congress AND the White House. Now George W. Bush is no Ronald Reagan - even I will tell you that - which is all the more reason to give him as much GOP support as he can get. He'll need it. Bush needs to win in a landslide in order to govern effectively. Eking out a close victory won't cut it. Furthermore, a close contest in the presidential race will likely result in the Democrats gaining back control of the House, an event that would make any Bush victory a hollow one indeed.
I understand the reservations some of my fellow conservatives have with George W. Bush. But he's a damn better choice than Algore. With George Bush in the White House, we do indeed risk not having our conservative agenda moved forward as fast as we would like. But with Algore in the White House, we GUARANTEE that a conservative agenda will not be advanced and in fact, we may never get an opportunity like this to advance it again.
Allow me make myself perfectly clear: An Algore victory will be a SMASHING victory for the Clintons as well as a redemption for what they stand for. Don't doubt this for a minute. If Algore pulls this out, the Clintons will be absolutely jubiliant and victorious. They will NOT be going back to Arkansas and they will play a MAJOR role in an Algore Administration.
George W. Bush has an excellent shot at winning the White House. George W. may be no Ronald Reagan but he is no Bob Dole either. And Dick Cheney is no Jack Kemp. I sincerely believe that a Bush/Cheney Administration will cleanse Washington of the Clinton/Gore stain.
Bush's choice of running mate surprised me. It would have been easy for Bush to assure an easy victory by selecting a popular moderate like John McCain or even a very popular liberal-moderate like Colin Powell. But Bush didn't take this route. Instead, he picked a real conservative to run with. I sincerely believe that Bush was trying to send his base a message that despite the campaign rhetoric, he plans to govern to the right once elected and getting elected is the main thing for Bush right now. Bush knows that he needs to be elected before he can govern so now that he has his conservative base wrapped up, some of his conservative message needs to be put on the shelf right now. Yes, that's a bit cynical but if you want to get elected, you've got to beat Clinton/Gore at their own game. That's why we had that convention earlier this month. That convention wasn't for us! That convention was for the soccer moms, the Reagan-Democrats, etc. And what is wrong with reaching out to those people? George W. Bush isn't going to be the president of just the conservatives. He's going to be the president of the nation! True, Bush isn't going to win the true liberal-socialists to his side (and I'd be concerned if he did), but he does need to expand his base considerably beyond us true conservatives if he is to get elected and govern effectively.
President Gore will prove to be far more dangerous than Bill Clinton. For Bill Clinton, he treated his presidency like a teenager on a joyride. He got his kicks from riding in limos, getting fellatio from his interns and hob-knobbing with movie stars. He didn't give a crap about governing or all the scandal his administration generated, all he really wanted to do was play golf on Martha's Vineyard with the beautiful people and have his Hollywood friends in the White House for sleepovers. Which was a very fortunate thing for us conservatives. For it enabled us to quickly gain control of Congress for the first time in 40 years and at least blunt the liberal agenda. If it wasn't for Newt Gingrich and other false conservatives like him, we could have even reversed it.
But Algore is a different animal. He actually BELIEVES in the liberal, socialist crap he puts out. We cannot afford even four years of Algore because Algore is SERIOUS about governing. He will fill his cabinet and staff with extremist liberal-socialists who are just as serious and as dedicated as him. And he will find a place for Bill and Hillary in his administration as well. Count on it.
So getting back to Pat Buchanan. He is a good man. He is principled. His heart is in the right place. But he is unelectable. We know that. Pat knows that. Even if every one of us true conservatives voted for Pat, it wouldn't be enough for him to win. The mainstream media has demonized Pat. There are more people against him than there are people for him. I believe the mainstream media have been unfair to Pat Buchanan. They have spread mistruths about him and have distorted what he stands for. They have done the same thing to Pat Buchanan that they did to Dan Quayle. Dan Quayle didn't deserve it either. Quayle is a good man who would have been a good president. And he is MUCH smarter than the general public give him credit for. But like Pat Buchanan, Dan Quayle is also unelectable. It's unfair but it's a truth that we have to accept.
One of the posters in the previous thread (DoughtyOne) mentioned that Bush is going to win no matter what. So that if Buchanan could get, say, 20% of the vote, it would send a clear message to President Bush that Pat's message must be contended with. I wish I could believe that. But I am convinced that every vote for Pat Buchanan will come out of the Bush column and give Algore a much closer race than he (and the Clintons) deserve. Furthermore, we take the risk of actually electing Algore and I believe strongly that if Algore is somehow elected, that all is lost. Even if Buchanan got 25% of the vote, it would mean absolutely nothing if Algore and the Clinton crowd got another four years to consolidate their power.
That is the basis of my decision to vote for Bush. I will respect my fellow conservatives who will continue to support Pat Buchanan. If I am attacked as a man without principles because I am voting for the lesser of two men, so be it. I disagree with the Buchanan supporters on only one main point - that Pat Buchanan is unelectable and that a vote for him will only allow Algore and the Clintons a chance for victory. I too care for this country and I wish to avoid an Algore administration at all costs. My gut feeling tells that George W. Bush is our only hope to avoid a catastrophic Algore administration. Well, that's my decision and I'm sticking to it. I'll take what's coming to me now.
Well done . . . Here' last evening's reply also!
Well said as usual, my friend. Hopefully, many will heed your advice and do the right thing.
I vote for George Bush in '88.
That was enough, never again.
It was sad to witness the Party of Reagan transform into prostitutes for global corporatism. The GOP "leadership" does not have the best interests of the American people at heart.
"I disagree with the Buchanan supporters on only one main point - that Pat Buchanan is unelectable and that a vote for him will only allow Algore and the Clintons a chance for victory."
Not only unelectable, but if for some reason Pat did gain office, he would not be able to effectively govern either. It's not in his temperament.
I look at Pat as an heir to your namesake, Sam Adams. Like Pat, Adams was an agitator, a conscience, a true patriot, but when he had the opportunity to take charge, he declined in favor of another fellow named George who was much better suited in bringing various interests together for a common cause. Sam Adams was content in being a voice for liberty. I wish Pat would follow his example and use his talents where they are best suited. The Presidency is not where Pat belongs.
The GOP "leadership" does not have the best interests of the American people at heart.
Your opinion Willie. Economic isolationism is not in anyone's interest except for those that already "have theirs."
I too care for this country and I wish to avoid an Algore administration at all costs. My gut feeling tells that George W. Bush is our only hope to avoid a catastrophic Algore administration.
You are, of course, correct.
Some Buchanan supporters genuinely believe in what he advocates; some others just support him to be contrarian.
Pat has marginalized himself and will attract, like a magnet, extremists. In an effort to differentiate himself and get some attention, he will continue to be outrageous.
Pat's the Ozzy Osbourne of American politics.
Thank you for a good explanation of your position. I do disagree. Like in football, the direction the ball is moving is important. If I thought that Bush was moving toward a conservative goal then your thoughts would have merit. However, I think he is moving more toward liberal goals. Hence a vote for Bush will move the ball in that direction.
Bush's first choice for VP was Powell and RINO of the first rank. Backup GOPers are McCain, Ridge, Whitman, Mrs Dole, Patacki. More conservatives like Bauer and Keyes were completely buried by the GOP both in the primaries and face time at the convention. Big money and big media have taken over the election process by control of the nominating process. Both major parties are virtually identity. Dole was as much a VP to Clinton as Gore was.
So here are the reasons I support Buchanan as the best alternative to reduce the advance of the ball toward the goals of liberals.
---------------------------------
Republicans and Democrats support the Four Horsemen of America's Apocalypse
GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST - WIN PAT WIN
How true you speak. When Pat was on Crossfire, he was truly in his element. And I looked forward to seeing his columns as well. Pat was and hopefully will be again an eloquent and passionate spokesman for the conservative cause. Pat is not cut out to be president and there is no shame in that. Not many of us have the ability to bring disparate groups to a common cause - an ability that is crucial to be an effective leader of the most diverse nation on Earth.
I liked your comparison between Sam Adams and George Washington. I never thought of it that way.
Nice Try! Desperation at it's best.
"I understand the reservations some of my fellow conservatives have with George W. Bush. But he's a damn better choice than Algore." -- SamAdams76
And that is the point of your discussion, isn't it? You are willing to take the "lesser of two evils" and in the process you feel compelled to share your self imposed triumph with others. And you wonder what is wrong with America? It is *YOU* that is the root cause for the sickness in America; you don't stand by any ideals other than what the mass media feed you. They set up "polls" and you are gullible to believe their "polls."
Pat Buchanan is a much better choice than GWB. Then again, Harry Browne is the absolute best choice. Why reach for the bottom feeders when you can reach for the top?
I'll just add to your comments that there do exist in this country racists and neo-Nazis and such...and if Pat gives them a "home" and allows the Republican party to shed any perceived association with such, then let Pat represent the Reform Party forever. Good riddance to both.
I wish Pat would follow his example and use his talents where they are best suited.
By running for the presidency, Pat is using his talents where they are needed.
Bob Dole made it clear that the GOP no longer wants to hear conservative voices at their national convention in '96 -- a concept that was expanded by the bushies this year in their scripted infomercial. I will not participate in the Republicrat merger.
Then again, Harry Browne is the absolute best choice. Why reach for the bottom feeders when you can reach for the top?
By definition, bottom feeders consume "what's left" after all the other fish have eaten.
Your Harrry Browne and Buchanan are the true "bottom feeders."
I appreciate your effort, but I wouldn't expect to change (m)any minds.
Take heart in the fact that it doesn't matter much now, and matters less each day.
Unity in opposition, and best wishes…
Pat Buchanan is a much better choice than GWB. Then again, Harry Browne is the absolute best choice. Why reach for the bottom feeders when you can reach for the top?
If the alternative wasn't Algore and the Clintons, I could afford to vote on principle. We cannot afford four more years of Clinton/Gore. It is my opinion that four years of the Clintons will be disasterous to this nation and I will do whatever I can on my part to stop it from happening. It is not loyalty to the GOP that is keeping me in the Bush camp, it's a genuine fear of what the Clinton/Gore crowd will do to this country if they are elected again. It will make all the difficult battles we fought over the past eight years go for naught.
When this crucial battle is won, I may yet abandon the GOP party for something different should Bush and Cheney abandon their conservative principles when elected. But Pat Buchanan and the Reform Party is not the answer. Not this year, anyhow.
Nice Try! Desperation at it's best.
Sorry A+Bert, but desperation is what's happening in the Reform Party right about now.
That's reality my friend. Whether or not you choose to accept doesn't change that simple, undeniable fact.
Well stated. This BUMP! is for you.
I am supporting the Bush/Cheney ticket because I am fed up with the Clinton Crime Family. I don't just want to see them beaten this November, I want to see them annihilated. I want to see Hillary Clinton in tears and unable to even make her concession speech in New York. I want to see the condenscending smirks wiped off the faces of the TV anchors for just one night. I want to see Bill Clinton sent back to Arkansas (not New York) in humilation..
I fear the Clinton pecadillos, as despicable as they are, have become an obsession with too many within the GOP. The result is that he has become the focal point rather than the direction in which this country is headed.
As Buchanan pointed out in his speech last night, i) the moral climate in this nation continues to worsen; ii) spending, even with a GOP congress, has continued at a faster rate than it did with Tip O'Neil as speaker; and iii) the GOP congress that came in with the Contract with America has failed to eliminate a single federal agency or program. This alone is reason enough to vote Buchanan. There is, however, yet another.
So getting back to Pat Buchanan. He is a good man. He is principled. His heart is in the right place. But he is unelectable.
The moral climate in this nation is a cesspool. As Buchanan noted in his speech two days ago, the wheels are coming off the American family. That is the single most important issue facing this nation. The family, and marriage, is the building block of civilization. Too many GOP congressmen cheat on the mothers of their children, just like Clinton.
If this nation is to survive its moral crisis, it will not be with leaders who are "electable", but rather with men and women who are honest, good and wise. Divine intervention will, in my view, be required at this juncture in our nation's history as indeed it was at its founding.
I am therefore not at all concerned with whether Bush is more electable than Buchanan nor am I interested in punishing the Clintons. I want to see, with the help of the Almighty, a turn around in our nation. Buchanan is honest, good, and wise. For those reasons I will support him and pray that an Omniscient, Omnipotent, Father in Heaven will again favor this nation and save it in a time of crisis.
Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain. Psalms 127:1.
Get ready for a few more surprises. The race is just beginning. Those paleolithic-neolithic Dem-GOP turtles are slow to catch on to the public contempt for them.
f the alternative wasn't Algore and the Clintons, I could afford to vote on principle. We cannot
afford four more years of Clinton/Gore.
And four years from now there'll be another democratic candidate we can't let in because it will spell disaster for the country. Come on, haven't you had enough of this game? The time to vote for a third party candidate is now not four years, eight years, twelve years from now but now. The two parties are so corrupted with soft money that they've become a degenerated incurable disease of which there is no cure.
Deborah Green, a Reform party delegate from New Rochelle, N.Y. said Buchanan could have capitalized on the reform wave unleashed by John McCain's challenge to Bush.
What reform wave? McCain was a patsy sent in to test the liberal waters lapping around the RINO party.
Instead, he picked a real conservative to run with.
Statements like this open a major breach in your otherwise well done rationalization for voting in the head RINO. Cheney is in because the corporate world want him in. He is a Wall Street pick, plain and simple. Are you forgetting that the NWO is a corporate venture into global monopoly? Those grey men in finance are the Bush puppet masters. Can their signal be any more obvious?
I won't argue with you as to whether or not Bush can win or Gore can win or Buchanan can win or Nader can win...the fact remains, that if you are true patriot and are convinced that only an about face by the executive, the legislature and the judiciary back toward constitutional principals will save America from its present course of global imperialism, then vote your heart and mind instead of comprimising ethics and determination by voting "most likely to succeed..."
If voting for principal is "unrealistic", as has been stated by Bush supporters here time and time again, then so be it...'cause the "reality" of having Bush or Gore only means...more of the same!
One party will move toward globalism by way of socialism, the other by way of fascism. They are the left and the right. Step away from that paradigm for a minute and recognize that neither matters if the federal government were chained and fetered by the Constitution as Madison, Jefferson and several other good men had intended. Of all the candidates from left to right, Pat Buchanan alone supports the Constitution. That is reality!
Rationalize all you like, in the end however, you have only succeeded in compromising your principals. You have betrayed yourself as well as true patriots everywhere.
The excesses of the neither the left nor the right could come to pass if the federal government had not usurped powers and jurisdiction where they have none. Stopping federal centralization is the true cause behind conservatism. That is NOT on Mr. Bush's agenda.
"Your [Buckeroo's] Harrry Browne and Buchanan are the true "bottom feeders."" -- sinkspur
Let's discuss what your candidate is about. Nothing but more of the same political fragmentation and the demise of America as a result of impeding individual rights and freedoms. Go play your sophomoric opinions in another sandbox, pal.
Great Read!!!!!!!.....BUMP!
I fear the Clinton pecadillos, as despicable as they are, have become an obsession with too many within the GOP. The result is that he has become the focal point rather than the direction in which this country is headed.
Unfortunately you are right. The Clintons are so despicable that they have blinded many of us to the point where we will vote for almost ANYBODY just to get them out of office.
I think that is sad and I hope that this nation never repeats the mistake of electing people like them again. But we need to get them out of power now. We cannot afford to compound the error by electing Algore.
Like I said earlier, if Algore wins, the Clintons will have redemption and the controlled press will trumpet them to no end. The conservative movement will be discredited and the politics of destruction will accelerate. All the people who were ruined by the Clinton will go unavenged and future victims will be afraid to go public. Is this the sort of America we want? It is the America we will get if the Clinton/Gore way of governing is sanctioned this November.
Pat's the Ozzy Osbourne of American politics"
That might hurt if issued by other than the "Pee-Wee Herman" of FreeRepublic.
You raise very good points. The biggest turn-off with Bush for me are many of his supporters who are extremely smug and actually will mock and put down Alan Keyes and Pat Buchanan and all their supporters. Since I vote in Texas, my vote isn't going to hurt Bush so I can vote for Buchanan who still stands more for what I believe in. It's not November yet anyhow.
Economic isolationism is not in anyone's interest except for those that already "have theirs."
Policy makers and "free trade" advocates who use the epithet "economic isolationism" in describing Buchanan's views do this nation a great diservice: they obscure what is actually happening in the trade arena by using labels rather than discussing the real issues.
They are the ones who for nearly two decades allowed a situation to exist whereby we took in excess of 40% of China's exports while she took some 1% of ours; she imposed average tariffs in excess of 35% on our goods while ours were about 2% on hers. This arrangement provided China with the essential hard currency for her military buildup.
Now, the "free trade" crowd has negotiated a situation where--hopefully--China will phase down her tariffs and subsidies over a several year period; however, at the end of the phase-down period, our average tariff on China's goods will still be approximately 2% while hers will be in excess of 15% on ours.
Dare criticize this arrangement and you are promptly labeled an "economic isolationist." I don't know about your definitions but our arrangement with China can hardly be described as "free trade" in my book.
Dwayne Andreas, former CEO of Archer Daniels Midlands--"supermarket to the world"--once told a reporter, "There isn't a grain of anything in the world that is sold in a free market. Not one. The only place you see a free market is in the speeches of politicians."
Testifying before congress on behalf of the Coalition to Promote U.S. Ag Exports, Andreas stated, "Let me tell you, when it comes to agriculture...there is no such thing as a free market."
Let's discuss what your candidate is about. Nothing but more of the same political fragmentation and the demise of America as a result of impeding individual rights and freedoms. Go play your sophomoric opinions in another sandbox, pal.
You talk about "fragmentation," and support Buchanan, who would balkanize America into Christians and non-Christians, and whose rhetoric already divides Americans into "camps."
He's as bad as Clinton.
Libertarians will never gain much support with their non-nuanced advocacy of legalized drugs and unfettered abortion.
That might hurt if issued by other than the "Pee-Wee Herman" of FreeRepublic.
Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of those who have run out of things to say.
I am supporting the Bush/Cheney ticket because I am fed up with the Clinton Crime Family. I don't just want to see them beaten this November, I want to see them annihilated. I want to see Hillary Clinton in tears and unable to even make her concession speech in New York. I want to see the condenscending smirks wiped off the faces of the TV anchors for just one night. I want to see Bill Clinton sent back to Arkansas (not New York) in humilation. I want to see the GOP increase their majorities in both the House and Senate to the point where it is virtually override proof. Above all, I want to see a conservative agenda, not a liberal-socialist agenda advanced in Washington.
I appreciate your heartfelt expression, but I respectfully disagree. I understand your desire to embarrass and repudiate the Clintons but, for me, it is not enough to be against what is evil. I must also be for the good. And it is with the last sentance of the paragraph where, for me, the logic of your argument breaks down.
If, in fact, a conservative agenda would be pursued in the wake of a Dubya victory, I too would support Bush/Cheney. But Dubya's RINO-ized GOP is running away from conservatism. They offer America little more than feel-good pablum mimicking the Clinton's "inclusion" politics and a Clintonian agenda. The only vestage of the Old GOP that has survived is a few paltry tax cuts, but they hardly compensate for:
I could go on, but you get the point. For me, voting for either Bush or Gore is a vote for the continued destruction of the land I love. It is not enough for me to vote AGAINST one of the destroyers. I must vote FOR the restorers.
Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster will work to restore our Constitutional Republic. Bush/Cheney will continue the Clintonian demolition. Therefore, my vote must be the former and not the latter.
Headshot!
Sam:
As much as I appreciate what you are trying to do here, I sincerely doubt that the Patsies are "reachable" in terms of logic and sense. If they were, they wouldn't be going off on the 3rd party tangent in the first place. Rather, they would have waited like Dr. Keyes, saw what the eventual results would be - and like Dr. Keyes, after the selection of Cheney as VP, would have given their endorsement.
Bush has given me cause to hold my nose. I would love for a US candidate to say that he would kill the Department of Education - it would be perfect for British Tories to say that one could do the same. Unfortunately in this, among other things, I've been disappointed. Yet he remains the best viable candidate, the sole bulwark against the continuation of the Clinton Administration by other means.
It is indeed strange that the people who stood together at the March for Justice, and are capable of recognising the dangers that Bill Clinton present, want to blunt their ability to prevent his successor and heir from continuing to drag America through the mire. Not all Republicans are wonderful, but at least they are not Democrats, and there is the capacity within the Republican Party for the right thing to be done. This is something that can never be said about the Democrats.
The Patsies will never agree, and never acknowledge this - they would rather run down GW Bush than Al Gore: run the numbers, take a look on this board and see how much time the Patsies run down GW Bush in comparison to how much they run down Al Gore. Al Gore barely exists on their radar screens, in spite of being the major danger. GW Bush, in their view, is alternatively a dreadful beast or a treacherous buffoon. In short, you are never going to get a fair hearing for GW Bush among these people. They are so convinced of the rightness of their cause that they cannot see the faults in the campaign, nor appreciate the dangers that lie ahead for America and the world in a Gore administration. They have lost focus on the most important fact about the 2000 election - that it must be a victory over Clintonism, in both the Presidential and Senate races. Only after this event, this total repudiation of Clinton and the past 8 years of treachery and despair, can something be built.
In short, forget the Patsies. It is a sport to give them a swift kick and remind them of their apostasy. In the world of serious politics, it only remains to defend against their outlandish charges against GW Bush, and keep one's eyes on the prize, the things that old time Freepers such as you and myself dreamed about since before the March for Justice - that things can be made clean again.
Best Regards, Ivan
Thanks for you opinion...... getting rid of the current administration's influence in/on the Presidency must be done.
Like I said earlier, if Algore wins, the Clintons will have redemption and the controlled press will trumpet them to no end. The conservative movement will be discredited and the politics of destruction will accelerate. All the people who were ruined by the Clinton will go unavenged...
You're still focusing on revenge and "redemption" for the Clintons.
The conservative movement will not be discredited by the election of Gore: it was discredited when the GOP Senate leadership refused to go forward with a trial. It was discredited when the House refused to make the China connection an issue, focusing instead on the sordid Lewinsky affair.
It was discredited by a GOP congress that for 8 years has refused to rein in spending, eliminate a single federal agencey or program.
It was discredited by revelations that many of its leaders, while preaching family values, led personal lives as lecherous and sordid as Clinton's.
The politics of destruction will cease when men and women who are honest, good and wise are elected. Elections based on who is most "electable" will not solve this nation's propblems.
" Buchanan, who would balkanize America into Christians and non-Christians"
Nah, it's differences on the basis of pro-life vs pro-abortion and pro-morality vs pro-perversity. Are all non-Christians really pro-abortion and pro-perversity?
"You [Buckeroo] talk about "fragmentation," and support Buchanan, who would balkanize America into Christians and non-Christians, and whose rhetoric already divides Americans into "camps."" -- sinkspur
Where is some substantial documentation to back this up? I remember when Keyes (one of the greatest Americans to run for a presidential candidate) you were suggesting bizarre and fabricated points as well. You cast aspersions without any framework.
Sinkspur, what planet were you hatched on? I dub you the official FreeRepublic "looney-toons." Now get back to work and go out collect some aluminum cans for a living.
Noble sentiments, Revolutionary friend. As I have mentioned
before on these threads,
we are all friends around here at FR. Insofar as the Bush/Cheney
national campaign may
choose to reinforce your appeal - which is entirely correct IMHO -
let them now see to
it that the DEBATES include
Bush/Cheney
Buchanan/Foster
Nader/whoever
Algore/Lieberman.
They have it in their power to do so. And it really would be
a fitting signal and gesture of
good faith, no? Bring on the debates!
GO PAT GO!
CELTS TO THE FRONT (as
always)
Liberty and Union, now and Forever!
k-man
Nice post.
I recently took my kids to the movies and we watched Gladiator. The opening scene was poignant with regards to this election. In it, we see a horrific battle between the Germans and the Romans. The Romans "win". Over and over in my head I kept hearing myself say "this is the face of Empire". Death, destruction, gore, dismembered bodies. Fatherles children, destroyed families, poverty, disease, decline. Such is the face of Empire.
That's what this election, to me, is about. While you fear the continuation of the Clinton/Gore agenda and feel that Bush is the antidote, I believe that Bush/Cheney will only continue on the same path with a ruthless efficiency never dreamt of by the Democrats'concupiscent commander in chief who could always be distracted by a set of legs.
These men are hell-bent on Empire. Don't worry about domestic policy because there'll be nothing left after paying for the war machine that's needed to enlighten the benighted world. They've rolled on pro-life and I dare you to show me otherwise. Does Bush speak as passionately about the pro-life issue as he does education? They've rolled on Dept. of Ed; in fact, they've joined the gang---we can use government for "good". They rolled long ago on immigration. They won't even let the conservatives at the conventions anymore.
But that stuff doesn't matter. When the wars come, and they must come, then all that stuff goes down the drain. Remember World War II? Where was domestic policy then? For now, the little wars don't matter, but for how long can we police the world before we must install a draft? Our children are being led to slaughter by both sides of the table, and amazingly, both sides don't seem to realize it. Korea, Kosovo, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia......perpetual war.
I appreciate your fear about continuing on in the Clinton/Gore tradition, however, I believe you're wrong when you believe that Bush/Cheney are headed elsewhere. That's why I'm not afraid to support Pat. He's the only candidate headed in the direction I want to go.
Dead on, SamAdams. BRAVO and a big bump from Texas!
Where is some substantial documentation to back this up?
"We will take America back." Or so Pat often says.
Back from whom?
I remember when Keyes (one of the greatest Americans to run for a presidential candidate) you were suggesting bizarre and fabricated points as well.
How about some "substantial documentation" from you?
Libertarians will never gain much support with their non-nuanced advocacy of legalized drugs and unfettered abortion.
At the federal level,the fedgov under a libertarian president wouldn't have the authority to interfere with state level law.Perhaps the true reason that libertarians won't have much support is because the majority of folks in the US today are all too willing to obfuscate,spin and demean good people,much like you did above to advance their causes.Libertarians tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may.Its not a winning proposition right now,but who knows honor and truth may just come back into vogue one of these days...
Thank you for your badly needed display of civility in this forum.
IMO - the Gore train and Bush train are simply heading to the same destination on different tracks, not necessarily at different speeds!
I shall vote for Pat. We need a derailment!
Ol' Sink-
"Pee-Wee Herman" of FreeRepublic.
LOL
ROFLMAO
Oh my aching split sides......BUMP
> And it is with the last sentance of the paragraph > where, for me, the logic of your argument breaks > down.
A Bushie? Capable of logic?
Now Arator, you know quite well such a thing is not possible.
Don't flatter the boy with intimations of faculties he does not possess!
You will only deepen the pain, should a glimmer of self realization come upon him.
"Back from whom?" -- sinkspur
Sometimes, sinkspur, I think you are a manic-depressive with your "rollercoaster rides" of opinion.
Pat Buchanan's solid stance is the advocation of our national soverignty. His leadership will promote the removal of the shackles of increasing UN impairment onto America's borders. Simultaneously, he wants to ensure our borders are guarded from illegal immigrants (BTW, your presidential candidate openly invites) thus, diminushing the dillution of our citizenship.
America doesn't need any "third way" method. We can protect our own. Buchanan highlights this categorical fact.
WELL DONE!!!
If you read my posts on this forum you will see that I agree with you 100%.
We have to stop the tide of liberalism before we can turn it back.
In short, forget the Patsies. It is a sport to give them a swift kick and remind them of their apostasy. In the world of serious politics, it only remains to defend against their outlandish charges against GW Bush, and keep one's eyes on the prize, the things that old time Freepers such as you and myself dreamed about since before the March for Justice - that things can be made clean again.
Well said and right on the money.
I've been debating with these Buchanan backers for some time here and it really is like trying to reason with a brick. I believe these folks really prefer to feel morally and politically superior and throw mud at George W. Bush than actually see any change in our government, so they constantly complain that "Bush is (fill in the blank) and no better than Gore" or he's a puppet of some vague conspiracy that runs the entire world or simply "He doesn't 'support' the constitution" which means he doesn't wish to wipe out every government agency in 30 days. Once you take those extreme positions and refuse to do anything but argue about Bush and throw rocks at the Republican party, rational discussion is over and name calling begins. I know, I've been there and done that and it goes nowhere, fast.
SamAdams76:
The folks who vote Reform or whatever won't make a dent in the coming Republican victory and will remain on the fringe of national politics, which is fine with me and sometime I suspect, fine with them. They can always be against the 'establishment' and claim some 'moral' victory that only they recognize, but hey, let 'em. Who cares much anymore, except to set the record straight and prevent them from taking over FR. Here, they appear to be a majority but in the real (non-cyber) world these ultra-far-right Buchanan, Browne folks are a speck on the radar screen of national politics.
Libertarians tell it like it is and let the chips fall where they may.
It's where the chips fall that trouble many of us about the Libertarian Party.
Don't flatter the boy with intimations of faculties he does not possess!
Now, BB, be nice. I think that under the skin of every Bushie -- especially sincere and thoughtful conservative Bushies like Sam (as opposed to vicious smearmongers like CWOJackson) -- is a battling Brigadier struggling to break free. They are with us on the issues, but just can't bear the thought of giving a victory to Gore. Once they realize that voting for Bush gives yet one more victory for what the establishment (including Gore) stands for, they just might join us and help us make a revolution.
We should be respectful and sympathetic to their inner turmoil while we help resolve it in Pat and America's favor. ;^)
I have spoken with many Perot voters from 92 and 96. Like those supporting Buchanan this year, many of them were disgusted with both parties and voted out of disgust. I've asked them - are they happy with what has happened since 1992 in government as a result of Clinton coming to power....(after the opposition vote was split by Perot).
100% say NO.
When I ask if they would vote that way again if they knew their vote for Pres Bush in 92 or Bob Dole in 96 would have prevented the Clinton crimes/damage - almost all have told me - NO! The damage has been too great.
Surely, surely, surely - our brothers and sisters in the cause to preserve this Republic and our freedom - Buchanan supporters - can have the vision to know that what you have written is exactly right and they can UNITE with all those who MUST SEE TO IT that the Clinton/Gore NIGHTMARE IS STOPPED!
Surely, surely, surely, those who support America's sovereignty to not want to share responsibility for helping to elect Gore and Dems who ARE GOING TO VOTE AMERICA'S SOVEREIGNTY INTO OBLIVION!!!!
One must look at the RESULTS of the vote - not just the REASON for the vote.
Form an alliance, Reformers! Then, when the vermin are swept out - demand and get your seat at the table to work for dramatic change for the good of the America we all love!
Sometimes, sinkspur, I think you are a manic-depressive with your "rollercoaster rides" of opinion.
Your amateur psychological analyses indicate delusions of grandeur.
From whom is Pat trying to take America back?
Sam, your passion for the preservation of our country is prevalent in your post, but I must take exception with your desperation. GW has proven himself in Texas, and in selecting his advisors, to include VP Cheney.
Buchanan voters, just like Gore voters, and Nader voters, are there because we are the land of the free and home of the brave. Not for a moment would I blackmail one's conscience, and please, do not do the same.
I, too, want my country back, but not to the extent that I will chastise another for their right to vote. I know this is not your intent, but you are using dem tactics.
I'll just add to your comments that there do exist in this country racists and neo-Nazis and such...and if Pat gives them a "home" and allows the Republican party to shed any perceived association with such, then let Pat represent the Reform Party forever. Good riddance to both.
If there were any supremists and racists in Pat's Reform party, do you think they will support Foster as VP? I would think if there had been supremists and racists, they would slither off to some other party. Republicrats?? In which case, good riddance to them and their party.
Pat Buchanan and Ezola Foster will work to restore our Constitutional Republic. Bush/Cheney will continue the Clintonian demolition. Therefore, my vote must be the former and not the latter.
Sure is a round-about way to say, "Cut off my nose to spite my face"
AMERICANS HAVE ALWAYS HAD THE SOAP BOX, BALLOT BOX, JURY BOX, AND CARTRIDGE BOX! For times like these.
BUMP
"From whom is Pat trying to take America back?" -- sinkspur
There seems to be a dark, vacuuous void behind your eyes. I type and type, but my point(s) go nowhere.
Another plank that Buchanan has described is the elimination of growth within the federal government. Now, I know this scares Bushies, that the federal government may decrease in power (as it should) thus permitting more individual and personal freedoms; but, it's okay to have that responsibility. Sinkspur, don't become too panicked and scared about all this, it's for your own good. You see, oun government does not belong to political parties that balleyhoo to those that cling on to it for subsistance. Our government belongs to the people.
I agree. If Dr. Keyes was still in the race, I would probably vote my conscience. I'm not enthralled with W.Bush, but I do have to think about where I find myself, in a cesspool of Klintons and gores. I feel I need a 200 foot ladder to get out...and I guess I'm gonna have to take it ONE RUNG AT A TIME!! To me, it's not the lesser of two evils, rather, moving away from the GREAT EVIL.
I try to be idealistic, but right now reality is setting in.
God save America...But it might have to be one rung at a time!
(How about Bush/Cheney with Dr. Keyes as Secretary of State, Mr. Watts as head of HUD, Ann Coulter as press secratary???). OOOH La LA!FMCDH
I think you're somewhat misguided. Buchanan wants to take into the hands of the federal government some awful powers, including the power of deciding whether or not your food is too cheap.
Go to his site, read "The Family Farm Bill of Rights" speech - if Buchanan feels that the price of a particular commodity is too low, he wants to block entirely the import of that commodity to jack up the price. Higher food prices lead to a decrease in the standard of living, no matter where it occurs. Apparently Buchanan wants the government to protect you from cheap Canadian food in order to do this.
Ivan
That convention wasn't for us! That convention was for the soccer moms, the Reagan-Democrats, etc. And what is wrong with reaching out to those people? George W. Bush isn't going to be the president of just the conservatives. He's going to be the president of the nation!
This was so obvious, it was hard to miss. It is also an excellent winning strategy. Defanging the attack dogs of the democratic spin machine. They are acting like poodles looking for their lost play toy. Yapping all over the place.
BTW, nice and well written article. Hopefully it will penetrate some of the minds and hearts of Pat's supporters.
I won't place any bets, though
I type and type, but my point(s) go nowhere.
I couldn't have said it better.
(How about Bush/Cheney with Dr. Keyes as Secretary of State, Mr. Watts as head of HUD, Ann Coulter as press secratary???). OOOH La LA!FMCDH
You are living in a fantasy world. Real conservatives will be as prevalent in a Bush cabinet as they were at the rostrum at the Philadelphia puppet show. The GOP has been RINO-ized. Only Clinton-Republicans need apply.
You could be right, but WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE!.Like I said, I'm not enthralled with W. But a start is a start, and with the right appointments, it could work.NO GOREBY,NO GOREBY, NO GOREBY!!!FMCDH
Vice President Al Gore has invited the sons of former Pennsylvania Governor Bob Casey to speak at the Democratic National Convention "on their views against abortion." Eight years ago the Democratic Party refused to let the staunch pro-life Governor address the party's convention. Robert Casey Junior who is Pennsylvania's auditor general and his brother Pat Casey will present a video tribute to their father who died this past May.(EWTN NEWSLINKS FOR 8/10/00)
Pro-lifers get better hearing from the Democrats.
You are living in a fantasy world. Real conservatives will be as prevalent in a Bush cabinet as they were at the rostrum at the Philadelphia puppet show. The GOP has been RINO-ized. Only Clinton-Republicans need apply.
Whole heartedly agree. Actions speak louder than words. We already saw what they did. If a picture is worth a thousand words, then we saw thousands of words denying, ignoring and hiding people like Keyes, Bauer, Forbes and others...
There is but one thing to do:
Good effort, Sam. The sniping and personal attacks back and forth aren't helpful. You stated your position well without resort to such sophomoric tactics.
ONE example with which I disagree is this:
Bush's choice of running mate surprised me. It would have been easy for Bush to assure an easy victory by selecting a popular moderate like John McCain or even a very popular liberal-moderate like Colin Powell. But Bush didn't take this route. Instead, he picked a real conservative to run with. I sincerely believe that Bush was trying to send his base a message that despite the campaign rhetoric, he plans to govern to the right once elected and getting elected is the main thing for Bush right now.
If you are right (and I consider it a very big "if" at best) that Cheney is a valuable conservative voice, IMO you have Buchanan to thank. Many conservatives would have at least strongly considered voting for Pat if GW had chosen McCain, Ridge, or Whitman. Pat's presence forced GW to chose a "conservative" running mate to prevent conservatives from going off the GOP reservation.
Because of Pat's presence, the question of "where will conservatives go" if they are $cr3w3d by the GOP again, is answered much differently than in years past.
Rather than attacking Buchanan and his supporters as fools and spoilers, conservatives in the GOP should be thankful he's made the fight.
If GW loses because he strayed too far away from base conservative principles and loses too many votes to Buchanan, it will be his own fault, or, more realistically, the fault of his advisors/handlers (Kissinger, Scowcroft, Shultz, Armitage, Rice, Wolfowitz, et al.)
One further thought. If Buchanan is held to only 5-10% or so, a good percentage of those votes will have come from blue-collar democrats and (if the ADL and JDL) are to be believed, a small percentage of the anti-semites. GW won't be hurt at all. In fact, don't you suspect that the choice of Lieberman will drive some bigoted blue-collar Democrats into Pat's or GW's camp? How many of those do you think there are? The Democrats themselves are expressing concern that Gore may lose a lot of Black votes because of Lieberman's religion.
You've made your choice on a rational basis even though many of us will disagree with it. IMO, you will at least be voting for the winner, even if we think you send the wrong signal by doing so.
BTW, I have the greatest respect for Pat, but WE need the "camel's nose in the tent". WE NEED A START!WADR...FMCDH
Keep in mind that we are looking at an international model for trade when we talk about Buchanan. His ideas do not compare to Bush because Bush has yet to advance any other than the same perpetual nonsense that (probably) will become his inheritance of past administrations.
I assume you are aware of the fixation of tariffs in America and their impact upon trade, since you brought up Canada's farm goods. This is a NAFTA that you are talking about. Has little to do with other nations such as the WTO, which violate America's sovereignty as it agrees with international methods that are not Constitutional; that is, not ratified by Senate treaties.
Free trade is not the charade that the previous republocrat administrations have sold you. We have entered into binding agreements where America pays high tariffs on exports and nations importing to America pay little or none.
Buchanan simply wants to protect our nation. Unlike these other presidential charlatans, Pat Buchanan tells it like it is: If you want America to be a strong nation, you don't give it away.
An Open Letter To Supporters Of Pat Buchanan
1% - GO PAT GO-AWAY!!!!
I am certain that most of the Buchanan supporters on Free Republic are genuine conservatives who care for their country. So I am a little ashamed to see my fellow "Bushies" attack them and question their conservative principles, etc. That said, there is plenty of mud being slung by people on both sides of this issue.
I appreciate your generosity in not questioning whether we are 'genuine conservatives'. (Next week, we'll debate whether or not the Pope is a genuine Catholic...he could always be a Southern Baptist in disguise.)
OK, so there's plenty of mud being slung on both sides. Is there anything remotely resembling equality in the volume or the nature of the mudslinging? Hell, no.
The majority of Buchananites stay on topic while debating, squabbling, and arguing--at least as much as is possible under the circumstances. I've seen a few LAPSES from our friend Arator and others (when responding to exquisitely snotty comments), but that's about all I've seen so far from our side of the fence.
By contrast, the majority of anti-Buchanan posts by Bush supporters are obnoxious, arrogant, stupid little insults more closely resembling schoolyard taunting than any sort of political debate. The less sarcastic insults run the gamut from denouncing Pat Buchanan as a 'nut', 'dictator', 'fool', etc.--to denouncing all of us who are his supporters as 'lunatics', 'dangerous people', 'whackos', and so on. (Before that it was 'racist' and 'Nazi', although the light of reality has bleached the bones of those smears lately.)
However, I'm not here to whine about these things; my point is twofold:
(A) We hear the phrase 'there's lots of it from both sides' all the time--that may be true, but there are aggressors and there are defenders, and you can generally tell which side is aggressive based upon who says the above phrase in question;
and,
(B) The nature of the political discourse says a great deal about the political views of the people in it: Liberals are very given in arguments to hurling Politically Correct hate labels like hand grenades--'right-wing whacko', for example, being one that we hear a great deal of the time. That Bush supporters use such tactics against Buchanan supporters speaks volumes about who is or isn't a 'genuine conservative'.
However, I don't put all Bush supporters in the same basket. Many are well-meaning individuals who have simply been misled by the Republican Establishment and its 'Amen Corner' on the radio airwaves.
(You'll have to excuse me here--I've been DYING to use the term 'Amen Corner' in context for a long time.)
Bottom Line: Learn who the real conservatives are and who the dupes are, and then we can talk about your pragmatic electoral issues.
Outstanding post!
I was a Dubya skeptic because of his father. So were lots of conservatives. However, picking Cheney convinced me Dubya is for real.
I also agree with your analysis of Al Gore.
You left out two things:
1. The threat posed by Hillary.
2. The coming "October Surprise".
The remaining true believers backing Pat need to understand that this election is NOT IN THE BAG! Even more than usual, the Dems will benefit from the cemetery vote, people voting early and often, etc. But this year will have something different (details as yet unknown). Billy has proven himself capable of absolutely anything. We have never had a President with zero scruples and so much to lose if his side loses.
If Billyboy would bomb aspirin factories and start wars simply to divert attention, what do you think he would do to avoid possible jail time?
If anyone is scarier than Gore, it's Hillary. The Lieberman pick will help her. Right now she looks like a winner in a close contest. Billyboy will give her a full pardon on Christmas Eve. (And the press will cheer when he does.) Four years from now she is the Dem's candidate for Pres. The time to stop her is NOW.
It's time for Pat and his folks to admit the obvious: Pat has no chance, but almost all his votes will come from Dubya. 1+1=2. Is that what you Buchanan supporters want?
I agree that the convention was a winning strategy--with the media owned by corporate America it is necessary to project an image that is geared to packaging the message in a manner that is unassailable. (The liberal media has not been able to use his words to disseminate fear-based propaganda--they've had to grudgingly concede the success of the convention.) I watched Pat's acceptance speech and although I have admired his ideas for over 15 years his remarks such as the 'chopsticks' crack open him up to charges of negative stereotyping. He enjoys being politically incorrect and I kind of like his rough and tumble approach--it's very grass roots and real but not widely palateable--he is a fairly easy mark for the media. GW plays well because he's not too caustic and he comes across as a genuinely nice man. We must not allow Gore to win--he is a fanatic liberal controlled by the teacher's unions and the trial lawyers as well as people in favor of the nanny state.
Sam, all of us who urged you so vehemently last night recognize your sincerity and thoughtfulness but we expect more of you than well constructed rationalizions. This isn't enough of yourself that you must give to your country right now. You must give that which is hardest to give - your faith in something greater and finer. As Arator and Doughty One have pointed out to you better than I ever could, we are fighting for America's survival and her highest God-good. Bush has no part in that equation because of where he stands (or doesn't stand) on critical issues of China' s nuclear collusion, abortion, and globalism...AND the place of God in our national character. Don't limit your thinking to such a limited reference of political persuasion: WE MUST DEFEAT GORE AT ALL COSTS. That's just what the Democrats want you to think. Their goal is to marginalize Pat amongst those who are the brightest and best and most honorable of men.
Pat's scholarly understanding of Truth in every area of America's life, AND his skill to execute that understanding in decisive action were he to become President are suffficient to mend America's ills. To this task we support him and have pledged the full force of our honor. The purposeless dissipation of America's culture and moral heritage demands nothing less from us, noblesse oblige.
Surely, Sam, you must have felt the moral beauty of his speech last night?! Yes, Pat's purpose for America may transcend the understanding of the mildewed brains of most Americans today but behind Pat's purpose is a higher purpose that ever was, ever is, and ever shall be richly cognizant of God's original intent for this nation. Can we mortgage our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor for anything less?
I'll just add to your comments that there do exist in this country racists and neo-Nazis and such...and if Pat gives them a "home" and allows the Republican party to shed any perceived association with such, then let Pat represent the Reform Party forever.
Thank you for helping to prove the points I just made in my last post.
I'm guessing next that you will say something along the lines of "Oh, Enola Foster doesn't matter because she's not a GENUINE black woman"..?
Every vote, for any candidate or referendum, is a de facto act of faith.
Reasonings such as SamAdams76's are based on polls. Polls, remember, are a journalistic invention, and fallible. No matter what the polls say, you can always get surprised in the morning with the aggregate expression of the popular choice. (Examples include Jesse Ventura and Harry Truman.) Polls are tailor-made to help steer people away from issues and into pre-packaged, back-room political sellouts.
It's true that, if Bush does not win, that a vote for Buchanan or Browne may help Gore. However, a Gore victory is what just might wake up the American people to what he really stands for, if he is as wrong as some folks believe (and then, folks, watch out!).
The SamAdams point of view is defensible up to a point, but I wonder if two years from now, people with that point of view today will be complaining that they voted for GWB "because we didn't have a real choice".
Fooey.
Vote your conscience, don't betray it for a short term advantage or incremental morality.
You'll feel better about yourself in the morning, and isn't that most important?
The nature of the political discourse says a great deal about the political views of the people in it: Liberals are very given in arguments to hurling Politically Correct hate labels like hand grenades--'right-wing whacko', for example, being one that we hear a great deal of the time. That Bush supporters use such tactics against Buchanan supporters speaks volumes about who is or isn't a 'genuine conservative'.
Nicely put. It is time to look at the politics of insult. Conventional wisdom says Republicans eat their young, and there is some truth to the rumor.
TRUTH: If you want to be absolutely sure someone will never agree with you, insult them.
QUESTION: What is the true motive of someone who stirs up a fight between people who should be pulling together? If I insult the Buchanan folk, will that make them more likely to back Bush? Who did the insults help?
"BTW, I have the greatest respect for Pat, but WE need the "camel's nose in the tent". WE NEED A START!"
Huh?? You mean we've been fighting all this time and we haven't even STARTED yet? After seeing the GOP's convention and seeing Pat's VP choice and his speech, I'm going back to Pat. WIN PAT WIN!
Well said, but the Patsies won't be receptive until October, if at all.
Vote your conscience, don't betray it for a short term advantage or incremental morality.
If the race looks close in November and Pat is clearly out of contention, what will you do?
You'll feel better about yourself in the morning, and isn't that most important?
If Bush loses by 1% and Pat gets 2%, will you feel better?
In my opinion, four years of Gore would finish the job Clinton started: Destroy this nation.
You are certainly right that four years of Gore would wake some of the sheeple up, but it would be too little, too late. The great American experiment would be over.
If your choice is to lose for sure, or live to fight again another day, which would you choose?
It's where the chips fall that trouble many of us about the Libertarian Party.
I can understand that,at least when the chips fall where they may,theres a 50/50 chance that good will triumph.When everything is micromanaged to total control,thats what we get,the tyranny of being totally controlled.Problem is that the Liberty cannot exist there.
You mean to say that you don't think that the states and the people thereof are capable of efficiently managing their own affairs or is that you believe that the US could not survive with different states having varying moral laws?
HONOR, DUTY, and most all, COUNTRY.
Support Buchanan/Foster!
Thank you very much for your well written post. First, let me tell you that this is my first post to this forum. I have been a long time "lurker" and I have found a great deal of comfort reading the many wonderful articles and posts here at Free Republic. It is very encouraging to know that there are some true Patriots left in this country. With that said, I would like to express my opinion regarding Pat Buchanon and the Reform Party. I watched the entire coverage of the Reform Party's convention as provided by C-Span. I was very impressed with the Reformers. Their courage and conviction was commendable. These people are real Americans and their faces reflect the faces of thousands of Americans across this country. We should all, no matter what party we belong to, be very proud of their courage and their determination to do the right thing as they see it. This convention was held under the most adverse conditions any political pary could possibly go through. Yet they allowed the proceedings to be openly presented in front of the American people and the scrutiny of the "unfriendly" press. I believe Pat Buchanon has been deliberately assaulted by both of the mainstream political parties and the mainstream press because he literally stands for a political philosophy that not only challenges their agendas but if allowed to be presented to the majority of Americans could seriously erode their fragile control of this country. This character assasination didn't just begin with this year's political debate. It began before they were able to push through NAFTA and GATT, the WTO and etc. He was one of the few voices raised in opposition to these maligned treaties. And obviously, he had to be destroyed both personally and politically. I do not know why he stayed in the Republican Pary as long as he did. If I had been in his position after the vile comments made by his own party in an attempt to silence his views, I would never have allowed myself to show any allegiance to them. That is why I am so impressed with your post. You did not use the worn out spin that is commonly directed at Buchanon but gave a logical, reasoned opinion based on common sense. Yes, we must not let Gore take the White House. Yes, we must be very careful and vigilant regarding this election. I agree totally on your premise as presented. To the rest of those who have decided to attack Pat Buchanon, I would say show more courage. You are only going to achieve further devisiveness. It is going to take all of us to correct what is wrong in this country. I believe true Patriots will do what must be done in the end...they always have.
Well said, but the Patsies won't be receptive until October, if at all.
That is true for many, but the seeds can be planted now.
Likewise, insults now will only make it harder when the time comes.
I propose a truce. Pat's supporters are convinced that once he has some money, people will throng to the cause. So lets see what happens.
Hey Sam, the Buchaneers appreciate your attempt, but we have a question for you? Do you and all the other people remaining people in the Republican party understand what PRINCIPLES are?
Many republicans have admitted that the party platform was "gutted" of any and all conservative issues of substance. Are you supporting Bush as the man, or for what he stands for and believes? I believe that you support Bush the man, because the platform is gone....kaput.
In summary, you are trying to pursuade Buchaneers to support Bush the man, and abandon their conservative principles.
Just as we cannot support Gore (by a longshot), we cannot support Bush.
WE WILL NOT ABANDON OUR PRINCIPLES!
WE WILL NOT SELL OUT TO THE LIBERALS!
We support the message, not the messenger. The Bush supporters support the messenger, not the message. Foster is also the message, not the messenger. It does not matter what color, or race, or background. Now you understand the difference between our beliefs and yours. Remember this.
HONOR, DUTY, and most all, COUNTRY.
Support Buchanan/Foster!
I vote for George Bush in '88. That was enough, never again.
If that isn't a total non-sequitur, then tell me this: for which of your FATHER'S sins are YOU culpable?
Dan
Excellent comments and I agree with you on every point....(especially your comments about Dan Quayle...hehe).
I believe the Buchanan supporters are good conservatives who are fed up with the direction the country is taking....we just disagree with the path to take to correct the problem.
Thanks again for a fine post. :-)
"George W. may be no Ronald Reagan but he is no Bob Dole either. And Dick Cheney is no Jack Kemp."
I'll see you that and raise you one: I think Bush/Cheney will actually be BETTER than Reagan/Bush (Sr). Reagan was good, but far from perfect. Ask Judge Bork. Besides, as good as Ronnie was, he still got snookered in the '86 tax deal, which knocked the legs out from the entire Savings and Loan industry by screwing around with investment mortgage deductability.
"So that if Buchanan could get, say, 20% of the vote, it would send a clear message to President Bush that Pat's message must be contended with."
I think a >50% victory, with coattails, would be better for our side than having a 20% thorn in Bush's side.
What it seems to boil down to is that supporters of Buchanan simply don't trust Bush. I don't agree with them, but I can certainly understand the anxiety.
"It is a sport to give them a swift kick and remind them of their apostasy."
Just don't kick too hard.
Pat's scholarly understanding of Truth in every area of America's life, AND his skill to execute that understanding in decisive action were he to become President are suffficient to mend America's ills.
Pat has NEVER demonstrated any skill to translate his understanding of truth into action in an elective office. If "scholarly understanding" were all that were needed to be an effective leader, then we should elect college professors to office. That is absurd on its face.
Yes, Pat's purpose for America may transcend the understanding of the mildewed brains of most Americans today but behind Pat's purpose is a higher purpose that ever was, ever is, and ever shall be richly cognizant of God's original intent for this nation.
Your faith in Pat's ability to discern "God's intent" for America is much greater than mine or most other Americans.
Cloaking Pat Buchanan in some messianic cloud is plain silly.
My thoughts exactly, Dan. Too bad they cannot see the silliness of their argument.
Great reply, Blessings! You've lurked too long, and posted too little...
May I suggest using < p > (without the spaces) periodically to break it up into paragraphs? Makes it a LOT easier to read...
FReegards,
CL
Let them go, for every extremist/looney tune like Buchanan that leaves the party, two more sane people join. Simple as that.
Buchanan and his paranoid followers are more of a liability than an asset to the party.
They constitute 0.8 % of the vote, who cares?
> Once they realize that voting for Bush gives yet one > more victory for what the establishment (including > Gore) stands for, they just might join us and help us > make a revolution. They are aware (as much as husbanded animals are capable of being aware of anything) that they are voting for "the establishment." They see no need for a "revolution," no matter by whom it is led. The sheep anxiously await the return of a more familiar shepherd. |
[
Reply |
Private Reply | To 51 | Top | Last ]
Your first post is an excellent one. Please, don't stop. LOL.
The problem is PB will be lucky to get 5% and that doesn't send any message at all.
Quick question. After Perot got 18% in '92, what changes did the dems and pubs make then?
Bump to you both--Woderfull points, delivery, and yes understanding of our Pat people. Your CORRECT THAT THIS ELECTION IS CRITICAL TO RETURN AMERICA TO AMERICANS-- In all my 70 years young I never , never, never felt this strong about one election!! It could be now or never--Socialism/clinton/disease seems to grow all the time--
Very well stated. Clintonism must die. There can be no other goal this election cycle above this one.
I've seen Bush govern Texas up close for five years. He talks a better conservative game than he governs. He finds it far too easy to compromise with Democrats. Yet he has been leaving a conservative footprint with many of his appointments and the Democratic Party's grip on Texas politics has been severely damaged.
You are right. Bush is no Reagan and I wish he had stronger conservative credentials and convictions. The time to fight that fight was in the primaries and what happened? Bush gets challenged from a right-to-left McCain candidacy and conservative candidates are left with the crumbs.
Pat's a good man and I agree with him on many issues but he is unelectable. He won't defeat Clinton/Gore. By leaving the GOP and turning the Reform Party into a punchline, he's served his role as useful idiot, opening up a wider margin of the electorate who will see Bush as "their" choice.
If Pat didn't pander to the CFR/Trilateral/NWO/Birdenberg conspiracy-around-every-corner whackos, I might be able to support him enthusiastically. But he's become as marginalized as they are. He'll never govern. But his Reform Party revolt will serve as his lasting gift to Republicans.
Now, if the Republicans can only take advantage of the opportunity given them. IF they capture both Congressional chambers and the White House, they'll have two years to make a difference. I expect a media demonization like never before if the GOP controls all three and the Democrats will be back in control of one chamber in 2002...then it's back to gridlock-as-usual.
Let them go, for every extremist/looney tune like Buchanan that leaves the party, two more sane people join. Simple as that.
Buchanan and his paranoid followers are more of a liability than an asset to the party.
They constitute 0.8 % of the vote, who cares?
AHHH tis a breath of fresh air to see you here with words of wisdom - not the screeching of the rabid butt cannon robots
HONOR, DUTY, and most all, COUNTRY
what branch of service did this - NEVER ELECTED TO ANYTHING-LOOSER, serve with HONOR? and DUTY?
QUESTION: What is the true motive of someone who stirs up a fight between people who should be pulling together? If I insult the Buchanan folk, will that make them more likely to back Bush? Who did the insults help?
Buchanan. Very good of you to point it out. Of course most of the Insultmeisters are fond of pointing out that he's polled as low as 1%, so what difference does that make to them? Maybe in October they will change their minds, but by then it will be much too late.
I have to say, at this point, however, that the odds of any existing Buchananites voting for Bush at the last minute are slim and none. There are SERIOUS ideological differences now between Third Parties and the GOP. At least as large as the differences separating the Republicans and the Democrats.
The Reform Party has moved to the Right--the Republican Party has moved to the Left.
Let's dispense with the trade issue, and look at other key issues:
*National Sovereignty--Directly threatened now by the U.N. (And it ISN'T 'Conspiracy bunk'--all a halfway literate person has to do now is read a newspaper to understand.)
*Globalist Military Interventionism--Unconstitutional meddling in the affairs of other nations, while simultaneously weakening our ability to protect REAL U.S strategic interests.
*Gun Control---NO additional federal gun laws are acceptable--and NO real conservative would promise to support any new ones in his campaign platform.
*Appeasement of Red China---This goes beyond trade debates; it is a matter of national security. The GOP has dropped the ball on this one; probably because of bribery and lobbying.
The George W Bush GOP is soft on ALL these matters. In the case of Globalist Interventionism, he solidly supports it.
I consider ANY of the four above issues to be FAR more important than quibbling over Social Security, tax cuts, or even federal policy on education. These are issues of National Survival itself.
Most of these Empire-boosters have never worn a uniform and have never felt the chill in the pit of the stomach one gets when boarding an airplane -- knowing you might not come back to care for your family. There is a time to fight -- for one's soil and one's family. Empire is no reason to fight.
When some of these Empire-boosters see their sons coming home in body bags from some far-flown reach of GWB's or AlGore's Empire, they will perhaps see Buchanan's point.
The problem is PB will be lucky to get 5% and that doesn't send any message at all.
I predict he'll poll above 5% within a month, and the numbers will rise from there. And that's WITHOUT a debate.
Will you get it straight! Pat is for fair trade NOT isolationism. He believes that if China imposes 40% tariffs on our goods we should reciprocate.
These are issues of National Survival itself.
Very well said, K. I wholeheartedly concur.
Surely, surely, surely, those who support America's sovereignty to not want to share responsibility for helping to elect Gore and Dems who ARE GOING TO VOTE AMERICA'S SOVEREIGNTY INTO OBLIVION!!!!
Point out some solid differences between the modern-day GOP on National Sovereignty VS the Democrats, and we'll listen. I frankly don't see any significant differences on that issue.
Is Dubya for reining in the UN, or even getting the US out of it? No.
Is Dubya for cutting down trade with the Red Chinese, so as to slow their massive nuclear buildup? No.
Is Dubya opposed to globalist military interventionism? Hell, no.
Where are the differences?
If that isn't a total non-sequitur,
Actually, it's quite relevant. Shrub isn't going to get my vote this year for basicly the same reasons on the same issues that Papa Bush failed to get my vote in '92.
The problem is PB will be lucky to get 5% and that doesn't send any message at all. Quick question. After Perot got 18% in '92, what changes did the dems and pubs make then?
It allowed the dems to give us "The Most Ethical Administration In History"
Good post Sam. I am going to vote for Pat, but I live in a state where that is an easy luxury. Bush will carry my state handily. I will admit that if I thought the election were going to be close in my state I would more carefully reconsider. I got into the Republican Party in 1963 as a Goldwater activist and gave it 25 years. Pat's speech last night brought back the old Goldwater days fellings! I can't imagine that the old Goldwater activists will not be voting for Pat. I figure that I am one that will send the message to the Republican Party just where I stand by voting for Pat. When in doubt, just vote the way you believe. I certainly hope a lot of environmental wakkos will do the same and vote for Nader.
Have you never heard of Republican Jesse Helms????? Name a Democrat who has AT LEAST spoken out and worked to keep us from paying any more DUES to the U.N. (He kept us from doing so as long as he could - yes he caved - I think - finally.) But name a Democrat who has EVER said what Jesse Helms said to the UN General Assembly! That's one difference. There are others, when rightly led will keep us from surrendering our national sovereignty while the Democratic party in Congress has at least 55 Socialists among them!!!! These people BELIEVE GLOBAL GOVERNANCE IS THE WAY TO GO! Name the Republicans who are in the Socialists organization!! Name the Rebpulican who would have as a desire of their heart to control the U.N. and head it up - ???? Bill Clinton lusts for that power - and his lovely wife Hillary has been IN CHARGE of pushing the anti-God, anti-life measures in the UN! Name the Republican who has done what Hillary has done in the name of spreading the pro-death agenda of her cronies through the UN to all parts of the world!!!!!
Sink, you're getting angry again.
Bottom line, I'm talking about principles. Pat's talking about principles and standing up decisively for them. You have to HAVE principles to be a real leader and you have to be willing to stand through a firestorm of special interest aliens to be an effective leader and faithful to a cause greater than self aggrandisement.
Where and what are Bush's principles? State them unequivocally for me. You won't and can't so you create a great deal of cannon blast against the pure statements of people like me who simply cannot betray the love of principle within their own hearts. You do this of course to mask the vacancy of all principle in Bush. If elective office proves a leader, where are the leaders today? You cannot justify the man, George W Bush to me as a leader despite his tenure as a governor. My basis is faith and discernment of the spirit which sees farther than angry reason.
I will not be moved.
"The Way to see by Faith is to shut the Eye of Reason." Benjamin Franklin
then tell me this: for which of your FATHER'S sins are YOU culpable?
In W.'s world, the father's crime of rape or incest would permit the death penalty for the baby.
I, too, want my country back, but not to the extent that I will chastise another for their right to vote. I know this is not your intent, but you are using dem tactics.
I've said before and I'll say it again: I will respect the right of my fellow Freepers (and any other American) to vote for Buchanan. The purpose of my post was to demonstrate why I feel it makes good sense to vote Bush/Cheney in this election and how I think a vote for Buchanan could backfire and elect Algore.
If I can convince some Buchananites to vote Bush/Cheney, fine. If I don't, well that is fine too. At least I spoke my piece and let others know where I stand. I certainly hope I did not create the impression that I was "chastizing" others for voting Buchanan. Debate is what this country is all about.
Unlike others on this forum who bash the Buchanan people, I do not want to write them off even though some of them seem to have a hate (or at least a loathing) of the Bush supporters. I understand that some will be in the Buchanan camp no matter what I say and that is fine. If one has a conviction to vote for Pat Buchanan then they should do so. I am a Pat Buchanan fan but I do not support him for president not only because he is unelectable but because I do not think he would make a good president (even if he could be elected). I think Pat should go back on Crossfire and go back to his column.
Actually, it's quite relevant. Shrub isn't going to get my vote this year for basicly the same reasons on the same issues that Papa Bush failed to get my vote in '92.
Ah, you're a spinner and a shape-shifter, I see. This is not what you said. But fine, I'm up to the SECOND, UNRELATED argument.
Sorry to hear you're an anti-Constitutional, anti-life liberal. Sorry to hear you can't vote for the only candidate who will move the pro-life movement ahead, lower the rate of abortions, lower taxes, privatize Social Security, and stand for ANY PART OF the Second Amendment.
Perhaps you'd feel more comfortable on a liberal site. Here, we tend to be conservatives who want to make a DIFFERENCE, and NOT JUST A GESTURE.
Just posing the thought, not telling.
Dan
Response A: Clever point. And so, I take it, you agree with rape and incest exception — if you agree with blaming W for his father's mistakes?
Response B: I agree that W's current position is wrong about LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF ABORTIONS — and yet he chose a running-mate who ISN'T.
Thus revealing the utter stupidity — sorry, no other word fits — of opposing a candidate whose position would eliminate NINTETY-NINE PERCENT OF ALL ABORTIONS.
I'm glad Alan Keyes isn't so stupid. So would ninety-nine out of every one hundread aborted children.
Dan
Well, thanks for the post, it's good to know that all Bush and Buchanan supporters aren't one another's mortal enemies when it comes to the major issues. I will concede that on some issues, Bush is preferable to Gore, but those aren't the issues that I'm most concerned with, and I'd be hard pressed to vote on that basis alone.
If Pat is as far down as the polls say, and Bush is as high up as the polls say, what are you worried about if our small percentage goes to Pat? You will probably get your victory anyway if Dubya is more than 10% ahead. More to the point, you shouldn't deceive yourself into believing that if Pat Buchanan didn't exist, all of his supporters would line up to vote for Bush. Buchanan isn't really taking any votes away from Bush. Speaking for myself, I have been disgusted with both political parties over the past decade, and if it weren't for Buchanan (or other 3d party "protest vote" options, like the Constitution Party), I'd just stay home on election day. Voting for moderate Republicans because they are the lesser evil simply sends the GOP a message that center (or is it left of center now?) is good enough.
"It is a sport to give them a swift kick and remind them of their apostasy."
What are you doing, even bothering to read such drivel. You want to try to co-opt HIM? Good luck!
The Brigade has been putting up with crap like this for months. It is an organized and evidently well-financed, vicious, campaign, whether you Bush people choose to acknowledge it or not. We would hope that you are not personally behind it, e.g. Karl Rove, Dubya's chief advisor or his chums. I personally feel that Dubya would not sanction it himself.
If you pay any attention to FR at all you know who the paid, organized, feces-mouth Patsie-bashing
screen names are. You will likely see them rising up like a ghastly crowd of flying vermin to flame me, on the pretext of this post. Watch.
You are right on every point. I too will fight for Bush/Cheney. I have never met a Buchanan supporter face to face. I think they all are here on FR.
Take a look at the Independant american Party if you haven't already. The platform makes sense to me.
Response A: Clever point. And so, I take it, you agree with rape and incest exception — if you agree with blaming W for his father's mistakes
Nobody's blaming Dubya for his father's mistakes. However, you'd be naive if you think that daddy Bush and the financial interests of clan Bush won't strongly influence Dubya's policy decisions. Why do you suppose Dubya appointed one of his father's former cronies to be his VP?
They constitute 0.8 % of the vote, who cares?
After having most of the day to reflect on my post here, I now see how my appeal can be interpreted as needlessly desperate. After all, the Buchanan supporters apparently make up less than 2% of the electorate in most of the polls I've seen - a great many of them here on Free Republic.
Still, I don't want to write these people off. These people are friends and good Americans to boot. I do not like to see us divided like this. We had a taste of this last year with the Y2K issue and though I was on the right side of that issue, I still have a bitter taste in my mouth over those flame wars that went on between us.
I do not like the fact that some Buchanan supporters are accusing me of not caring about the country, of putting politics before conviction. I think Bush/Cheney will bring honor back to the White House and that they have an excellent chance of beating Algore. As much as I admire Pat Buchanan, I do not believe he has the qualifications to be president and I do not believe he has a chance to win. In fact, I think a mass movement towards Buchanan - which hasn't show any signs of materializing - will result in an Algore victory which is GUARANTEED to be bad for America. Even if Buchanan gets 5%, it could throw the election to Algore in a tight race. Maybe if there was an honorable Democrat in the White House, it would be a risk worth taking. But we have CRIMINALS and TRAITORS in the White House. We must vote them out and we must do it this November.
Thus revealing the utter stupidity — sorry, no other word fits — of opposing a candidate whose position would eliminate NINTETY-NINE PERCENT OF ALL ABORTIONS.
While admitting I am just a stupid good ol' East Texas boy, I must say that I oppose Bush for numerous reasons outside of his impure position on life. I'm a 100 percenter on that one. But you know what? Six years as Governor and it's just as easy for any girl to kill her Texan baby today as it was when Richards held the office. Can't say I know what goes on out there in California.
Take care, Dan.
Have you never heard of Republican Jesse Helms????? Name a Democrat who has AT LEAST spoken out and worked to keep us from paying any more DUES to the U.N. (He kept us from doing so as long as he could - yes he caved - I think - finally.) But name a Democrat who has EVER said what Jesse Helms said to the UN General Assembly! That's one difference.
Of course I've heard of Jesse Helms. Did he speak at the convention the other day, is the question? Does he represent the new neo-Conservative, post-Reagan Republican Party? Of course not. He's a 'throwback', like Pat Buchanan used to be before he got fed up and walked out.
Helms is about as representative of the current Republican Party as James Trafficant is of the current Democratic Party. If Jesse Helms were anything CLOSE to being mainstream GOP, there wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
I was a Dubya skeptic because of his father. So were lots of conservatives. However, picking Cheney convinced me Dubya is for real.
Stop and think about what you are saying. George Sr. picked a good conservative as his running mate and yet your own appraisal of Senior finds him lacking as a conservative. You can't have it both ways. Dubya's selection of Cheney does in no way redeems him as a conservative. I promise you that the apple does not fall from the tree and just like his father's selection of Quayle, it was most likely made for political, rather than principaled reasons - and you and other conservatives in the GOP are the political pawns in that equation.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
"If you pay any attention to FR at all you know who the paid, organized, feces-mouth Patsie-bashing screen names are."
If YOU knew feces from Shinola, you would not be posting such a message to ME, cave-man...CL wrote the book on Patsie-bashing.
You're Reform, huh? What are you going to do when the FEC declares Buchanan the LOSER of the party, and puts Haeglen in??
BUMP
BTTT
BUMP
BTTT
Very good points made!
"I promise you that the apple does not fall from the tree..."
This constitutes at least 51% of the Patsies (on this forum) argument agains Dubya. Thanks for summing up your admission of the emptiness of your candidate in few enough words for me to cut and paste for all "young Greeks" to enjoy, Turk.
Cloaking Pat Buchanan in some messianic cloud is plain silly.
I actually agree. The ideas Pat Buchanan represents are certainly bigger than any single man or woman representing them. By the same token, I hope you can also see that holding on to the notion that the combination of a moderate-dominated GOP Congress with a moderate GOP president will somehow bring about some conservative utopia as just as silly.
Unlike others on this forum who bash the Buchanan people, I do not want to write them off even though some of them seem to have a hate (or at least a loathing) of the Bush supporters.
It's a well-earned loathing, provoked by GOP arrogance, and it's sure to get more intense as the campaign goes on. The truth is that we are being pretty soft on the Bushies. Of course, the reason for that could be because we have actual ISSUES we care about and talk about, as opposed to repetitiously calling our opposition a Doody Head.
I am a Pat Buchanan fan but I do not support him for president not only because he is unelectable but because I do not think he would make a good president (even if he could be elected). I think Pat should go back on Crossfire and go back to his column.
Fair enough. I think George W should stay Governor of Texas and get more than 5 year's experience in politics. Certainly if Gore whips his tail in the elections, his lack of political experience will have been a key factor.
If Billyboy would bomb aspirin factories and start wars simply to divert attention, what do you think he would do to avoid possible jail time?
The only problem with your analysis--Buchanan backers must back W to avoid a Gore election and continuation of the Clinton legacy--ignores one crucial factor: Where was the GOP during and after the bombing of Sudan and the pounding of Serbia? For that matter, where has the GOP been during during the China connection and the Reno stonewalling?
As Buchanan noted last night, W's only divergence with Clinton was that he didn't pursue the Serbs with more ferocity. I have three young sons, aged 19 - 25. W can take his "ferocity" elsewhere. A U.S. hegemony--be it a Bush or Gore version--is not worth my sons' blood.
This constitutes at least 51% of the Patsies (on this forum) argument agains Dubya. Thanks for summing up your admission of the emptiness of your candidate in few enough words for me to cut and paste for all "young Greeks" to enjoy, Turk.
Thank you for your thoughtful response. I believe if you carefully reread what I wrote, you will understand that the core of my skepticism of Dubya's conservative credentials finds its genesis not so much in his blood lineage as it is in his apparent willingness to follow the same political path as his father and, by the way, in the company of nearly the same fellow travellers (read key political advisors).
Thank you for your well thought out post, and I appreciate knowing more about position. Now, go and convince!
Why do you suppose Dubya appointed one of his father's former cronies to be his VP?
It couldn't be because Cheney and the A team helped protect DUHbya's interests in Bahrain?? nahhhhh they wouldn't do that.... LOL
Candidly, I suppose he did it for all of the stated reasons. I'm not aware of any credible person questioning Cheney's character, judgment, or conservatism. In fact, his on-record positions are to the right of some of W's stated positions. I believe he picked him because he would be a terrific asset in governing. Everything I've since learned about the man bears that out. Hardly a strike against W.
You asked, I answered.
Dan
Your building's burning, a hundred children are inside in danger of imminent death. You're crippled, and can't save any.
Two men come up. One is in a wheelchair, as crippled as you. He says, "I want to save all hundred" — though you know he will be unable to save even one.
The other is in robust health. He says, "I will save ninety nine."
You, of course, pick the first man, because you like his philosophy better.
And all hundred die.
Does that make sense in East Texas?
Dan
The other is in robust health. He says, "I will save ninety nine."
President Bush claimed to be pro-life, and he had a VP who was even more pro-life and socially conservative than Cheney. Nevertheless, President Bush gave us Souter and obviously had no core beliefs on abortion. He got the ball rolling on UN-sponsored "peacekeeping" missions in Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti (Clintin is heir to this NWO tradition), and his Middle Eastern dealings were shady to say the least.
All of the evidence that you give to prove Dubya's conservative credentials applied equally well to his father - who failed the Right miserably. And yet conservative Republicans are falling for it once again (and the funny thing is, it's even packaged with the same name on a younger face).
If your claim that Dubya would save 99% of life (vs. Pat's philosophy of saving 100 on the abortion issue) held any water, I'd certainly vote for him. But what did his father, the supposed "pro-lifer" with Dan Quayle as his VP do to end abortion in America? How many abortions were stopped thanks to President Bush?
Hey Gecko...
Your building's burning, a hundred children are inside in danger of imminent death. You're crippled, and can't save any.
Two men come up. One is in a wheelchair, as crippled as you. He says, "I want to save all hundred"
The other is in robust health, but is deaf and blind, and isn't able to understand your concerns, because of not being able to see or hear.
You, of course, pick the first man, because you like his philosophy better and figure, better a person that is listening and understands your pleas and concerns than someone that doesn't hear you or see the problem. So you and the other cripple alternate floors calling out to the children, directing the children safely from the building.
Congratulations Gecko, you made a wise choice!
The other is in robust health, but is deaf and blind, and isn't able to understand your concerns, because of not being able to see or hear
To complete the Bush analogy, this one should read: "the other is in robust health (i.e. can win) but is feeble minded and is unable to understand your concerns, never mind articulate them coherently"
To complete the Bush analogy, this one should read: "the other is in robust health (i.e. can win) but is feeble minded and is unable to understand your concerns, never mind articulate them coherently"
Ah, yes. *smile*
"Support Buchanan/Foster!"
Sorry, I'm following the lead of Dr Keyes and will be voting for Bush/Cheney, the candidates with integrity, accountability and leadership!
That is the silliest completion of that analogy I've ever seen. BUT you get points for consistency in approach!
" Why do you suppose Dubya appointed one of his father's former cronies to be his VP?"
Hey Lizard Lips, if Bush/Cheney are good enough for Dr Keyes, they're good enough for me!
Has Dr. Keyes written an article saying he endorses Bush? If so, please provide a link. The articles I see that Keyes has written are negative in the GOP content.
Dr. Keyes doesn't seem to be shy about saying what he thinks, so, if you indeed have a link to an article written by Keyes which says he endorses Bush, I'd like to see it. The fact that Keyes may accept Cheney as a VP pick, doesn't mean he endorses Bush. And only Keyes himself will know who he actually votes for, unless he tells us himself.
I have seen no article by Keyes saying that he endorsed Bush. It would seem that if he had, he would have written about it....
His silence speaks volumes.
"Back from whom?"
Those like you, who believe strongly, in nothing. The United States handed to us in our youth is worth far more than pragmatism as you might call it, centrism as your soulmate Mara Liason might champion it, or squishism, as I would define it.
BTW, that was really great of you to write back. Not.
The four key issues presented in Post #100 should be considered by every Republican voter before making a decision. I'll copy them below for your convenience:
"In W.'s world, the father's crime of rape or incest would permit the death penalty for the baby"
In terms of both moral rectitude and rapier wit, this is the single best post I have ever read on Free Republic. Man, are you throwing 105 miles an hour or what ? BRo - where have you been ?
major, thanks for pasting that comment by Either/Or and your reply to it. I missed the importance and impact of it the first time around.
Ah, you're a spinner and a shape-shifter, I see.
Cram it, Dan-o.
"In W.'s world, the father's crime of rape or incest would permit the death penalty for the baby"
major... any potential in the above being used in a campaign ad?
But we have CRIMINALS and TRAITORS in the White House. We must vote them out and we must do it this November.
The Buchaneers agree with you 100%. Funny, you seem level-headed. Most of the Bush posters out here (Sinkspur, CWOJackson, ExMarine1, magician, Tacsis, and the others) seem to be wackos based on their posts.
You are a breath of fresh air. At least I know that you are a conservative. Keep posting. You will bring integrity to the Bush cause; lord knows those other yaahoos bring lunacy in their defense of Mr. Bush.
I wrote this for another post....... but it fits here as well. It’s’s about Pataki
Well It’s a little late now but for what it’s worth..... most of the points have been covered. One angle that was not is this. New York takes a lot of ribbing here, but if the rest of the country wants to know what will happen to them they should pay attention. We were treated to what I see happening nationwide now.
Ten years ago we had a strong RTLP , and Conservative Party . Now we are pure RINO land. How? Easy. All it takes is for Republicans to be willing to throw a few elections. They are willing. They wanted us to be ineffectual and we are.
I should confess here and now I’m guilty! ( In 94 NOT 98) I knew better, but I rationalized it. NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER AGAIN! NO MATTER WHAT! That sinking feeling when I pulled that lever still is with me whenever I see his name. Guilt and anger, at him and most of all at myself. The lies I told myself should serve as a warning for others. I’m sure you know what they are. You know ...well RTL doesn’t really matter at the state level........Well Cuomo is soooooo bad......... at least we will get the death penalty. To tell the truth.... it makes me disgusted with myself just to think about it.
There are lots of good folks telling themselves similar lies right now. I wish they could have my experience, without the nation suffering. New York is a great place to learn about how the game is really played.
Someone should write a book about the intrigue that went on here in the last 10 years , everything from the infiltration and almost take-over of the RTLP (they did make off with the money, but we kept the party, barely).To the throwing of two governors races and D’Amato’s last race. The destruction of the CP, and the joke of the Independence Party. It’s truly sad the state we’re in ..... but America should take note....... you’re right behind us (and gaining fast).
If Bush loses by 1% and Pat gets 2%, will you feel better?
In my opinion, four years of Gore would finish the job Clinton started: Destroy this nation.
I have come to think of it in more personal terms. We would probably both agree that incremental socialism has destroyed much of the freedoms that we would otherwise enjoy. I would however consider carefully that if Gore were elected and were to "finish the job", that we sooner or later will be given the opportunity for redemption. It would be a form of tough love for America, but still an optimistic view. It has the benefit of forgoing the need to sacrifice one's own inner integrity.
If your choice is to lose for sure, or live to fight again another day, which would you choose?
I lose if any of my actions are done with loss of integrity. Right now, incrementalism is "winning", at least in the sense you are writing of, by picking off the stragglers and outliers anyway. By voting for Tweedledee over Tweedledum, what is the message that you are sending to those in the back rooms? That you stand for your principles and your values, or are willing and eager to be compromised and led down the primrose path of someone else's carefully crafted vision of what's best for you?
I have not voted for a Republican or Democrat presidential candidate in many, many years. The last president I saw with any integrity had his service interrupted rather abruptly. Every vote sends a message; my votes send the message to the Republican and Democratic leadership that the people they put up are not good enough -- nowhere near good enough -- for me. These people, if they want my vote and those of an increasing number of people like me, will have to modify their behavior before they win my support, and the support of others like me. Elections are (or at least should be) up to us, not them. Come what may, I won't give them-- any of them that do not pass the smell test-- the ability of counting me among their supporters, when the return is so often just continued disappointment, broken promises, and more incremental encroachments on what made this country great to begin with.
President Bush claimed to be pro-life, and he had a VP who was even more pro-life and socially conservative than Cheney. Nevertheless, President Bush gave us Souter and obviously had no core beliefs on abortion. ...what did his father, the supposed "pro-lifer" with Dan Quayle as his VP do to end abortion in America? How many abortions were stopped thanks to President Bush?
Easy.
Dan
Cram it, Dan-o.
We'll sore that as another direct hit.
Dan
"They are the ones who for nearly two decades allowed a situation to exist whereby we took in excess of 40% of China's exports while she took some 1% of ours; she imposed average tariffs in excess of 35% on our goods while ours were about 2% on hers. This arrangement provided China with the essential hard currency for her military buildup."
And the economy of China, the most populous nation on earth with over 1 Billion people is about equal to the State of Maryland. Get some perspective. She may well be a military threat to us at some point in time, but shutting down trade as a preemptive act is not the way to manage that problem.
And the economy of China, the most populous nation on earth with over 1 Billion people is about equal to the State of Maryland. Get some perspective. She may well be a military threat to us at some point in time, but shutting down trade as a preemptive act is not the way to manage that problem.
Nowhere in my post did I suggest "shutting down trade...". My point was that the "free trade" advocates have placed us in a position--after PNTR status--where China's average tariff is 5 times our average tariff on her goods. Granted, that is not as wide a disparity as prior to PNTR but it never-the-less is not "free trade"
There is no such thing as "free trade" and those who have dare critize the disparities in average tariffs are told, as you tell me, to "get some perspective". The perspective that is needed is on the part of those who have fallen prey to the appellation "free trade" when in fact no such arrangement exists.
As tariffs have come down--disparate as they are--NTBs have increased. I met last summer with a UK trade minister in the British Embassy in D.C. on the issue of the EC beef hormone ban. He acknowledged that there was no scientific basis for the ban and that it was in fact a protectionist measure. Again, there is no such thing as free trade.
That's great. You definitely completed the analogy. Well said, Max.
""I am supporting the Bush/Cheney ticket because I am fed up with the Clinton Crime Family.""
I am supporting Buchanan/Foster because I am fed up with both the Clinton and Bush Crime Families.
;-/
I heard it from his lips in a TV interview, Pandy!
Get a grip!!
"He acknowledged that there was no scientific basis for the ban and that it was in fact a protectionist measure."
A protectionist measure or a hidden tax on EU consumers that allows 'connected and protected' industries in the EU to charge higher prices to those same consumers? Of course, the government “helps” share the load with generous subsidies to both business and citizens which drives taxes even higher. The beef ban is just one of many dodges the EU and others use, but they are all to the detriment of their own citizens and their economies. Double digit unemployment rates along with capital flight to the US from nearly all the EU countries demonstrate that fact conclusively.
Why would we want to play the same game?
Exodus 20:16
Man, are you throwing 105 miles an hour or what ? BRo - where have you been ?
Like my man Shane Reynolds, had a twinge in the elbow and had to take a little time off. :-)
Took the wife and kids for some R&R up to New Braunfels and Schlitterbaun water park last week. We had a good time and I got a nice sunburn. Back now - tan, tested and ready to do battle with the RINOS here! How 'bout the Brainy One's speech and that documentary they showed the first night of the convention? Man, got me fired up!
If he did say he endorsed Bush in a TV interview, that ought to be easy enough to verify.
What channel did you see it on and who was doing the interviewing?
Thanks.
It was several weeks ago on C-SPAN, the question was asked by an anonymous reporter at an airport..
Oh...that sounds familiar from a thread that had an article from an AP reporter, but in that article it was very vague as to an actual endorsement... I and others tried to get clarification as to whether an actual endorsement was made, and someone posted that when they met and spoke with his wife, that an actual endorsement didn't happen....
I think this have been left vague, deliberately.
"I think this have been left vague, deliberately."
Let's have some documentation of his wife saying Keyes doesn't support the Republican ticket.
Do you really think he'll leave his party and join your little cult?
It's time for you to get a grip!!
First of all, I never said he was leaving the Republicrat party. I would think that perhaps this is where an 'endorsement' confusion may have set in. See, if he accepted Cheney as a VP pick... then he would remain in the party. But, make no mistake, this doesn't mean that he supports, or endorses Bush, or that he would even vote for such a ticket.
In fact, Keyes' recent articles about the GOP losing moral ground and such, makes me think he will in all liklihood vote for a 3rd party. And that IS his choice. My best guess would be that he would vote Constitution Party. My hope is that Buchanan eventually combines forces with the Constitution Party. If...IF Keyes left the Republican Party I think he would do it AFTER the election. But there is always the chance that he will remain until the pro choicers actually succeed in removing the pro life plank. Could happen 4 years from now, since it narrowly survived this time around. In fact it was actually defeated once, then a couple of members asked for clarification on what they voted on, and realizing what happened, changed their votes. So, it is only a matter of time before the pro choicers out number the pro lifers and then the pro life plank will be removed, sad to say.
You've heard the old saying, 'Everyone has their price'. Unfortunately for some people, their price is the willful slaughter of innocent babies.
How deep are you willing to sink anyway Sinkspur? Trying to smear Pat by suggesting he is a messiah figure (which no Buchanan supporter even thinks or imagines) is pretty damn low. If anyone is presenting themslves in that light it would be GWB...or at least that is the message coming from the RINO/GOP. From what I can make out from the snide remarks and opinions of the Bush supporters here it would seem he is being made out to to be the anti-anti-Christ.
As far as I'm concerned you should learn to appreciate the Buchanan supporters perspective...it's really quite simple...
NO MORE POWER FOR THE FEDS!!!!
That isn't exactly the platform of the RINO party now, is it?
Salvation comes easier to the ignorant than it does to those who should know better.
"'Everyone has their price'."
What's your's?
I do not like the fact that some Buchanan supporters are accusing me of not caring about the country, of putting politics before conviction.
I would never dream of accusing you of the first, however I definitely believe you are engaging in the second.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |